-
Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.
0ni
Registered Rustler
It's fairly reliable as it wasn't anonymous
I doubt 16 people all lied and the carry over given had a pretty small range
The Hamburgler
Spotter Loader
on the PL watch record iirc the raw bench records are all around 30% less than the equipped.
given the 60 million weight classes, drug tested, untested etc it's probably not a bad sample of elite level lifters
I know Sherro squats about 240 in wraps, 400 in the suit. benches about 130 raw, 200+ in a shirt.
Anyone who is already putting up 140/100/180 at under 100kg BW is not going to see a 20kg increase in their 1RM in such a short time frame from simply increasing volume. I dont know how freakish some peoples genetics are but if i can gain 20kg on my squat in a year im pretty stoked! When you have full time work and shifts vary etc. gym time becomes more about quality of training over quantity ( less volume using most important lifts only for the highest effort ).
That study like most other studies conducted in bodybuilding/strength training are more based around students who have consistency and time to train when and how they want with little interruption.
That study like most other studies conducted in bodybuilding/strength training are more based around students who have consistency and time to train when and how they want with little interruption.
strong enough?
Member
Eastern European strength coaches had the biggest cohort of subjects at their disposal and the truth that has emerged from decades of training is that the biggest driver of improvement is volume. All the Russian programs are designed around the number of lifts per month, with the number of lifts increasing depending on the level and maturity of the lifting.
The intensity of the programming doesn't really change that much between bgeinner and elite lifters - it's lots of drilling the lifts at 60-75%, then work sets at 80-85%, occasionally dipping up to 90%. The elite lifters follow the same programming more or less, but they have many more lifts per month/year and spread it over 5-6 days as their work capacity increases.
This approach really does work.
I am currently benching the same weights during training as I was about 6 months ago, in fact probably at even less intensity, but I am benching 3 days a week with a massive increase of number of lifts per month. My comp bench went up 15kg (almost 15%) in the same time, after being stalled for a long time. I am a desk jockey on the wrong side of 30 who has never been naturally gifted a sport. I'm no genetic freak and it worked for me.
Spritcha
New member
Great post- also great thread. Thanks for bringing our attention to the study ONI. This was the topic of a couple of discussions I had last week- one with mike tuchsherer, the other with a Russian coach. I have previously seen other studies that come to a similar conclusion- something along the lines of strength development for a lift is not simply about muscle stimulation but also significantly about building and reinforcing motor patterns and skill. Sheiko talked a lot about this in his book (not the new one- I saw that but it was in Russian alas) and raises some interesting issues around the utilization of the fatigue drop in the rts system.
0ni
Registered Rustler
What do you think about average intensity? Was that ever discussed?
I've come to the conclusion now that all the body knows is RPE, so percentage used is largely irrelevant. All that matters really is the last few reps in each set, which gives you the RPE. This is why I suspect myoreps and rest pause work so well- you get so many "last reps". I remember Mike T saying that the ideal rep for strength building is the 1RM as it gives the most TUT in the weakest point but it just wasn't practical to build volume on this which is why you use special exercises. However recently I've been using percentages greater than 90% and doing sets of 1-3 reps only resting 60-90 seconds and doing 20-30 reps per session above 90% in this manner and pretty much every rep is like a 1RM attempt. I've had amazing success with this in a very short period of time and was wondering what you thought of doing this or if it was ever discussed
0ni
Registered Rustler
Spritcha
New member
There were a few discussions. One of the things we talked about was how the heavier you train the lower the volume must be. Optimal development is about finding the right balance. But it's not simply that more repetitions grease the groove, as we know loading has relevance to specific types of adaptation. This is what Prilepin's chart is all about- working out optimal ranges- and what Russian templates tend to set out- getting an optimal balance of load and repetition. I mention it because it was pointed out to me that weightlifting is the foundation of all the Russian approaches- and I know Prilepin is at the heart of most of it.
Interestingly both Mike and I dropped the fatigue drop concept in favor of set amounts of repetitions within different "zones". Apparently there is research that looks at forms of adaptations you might call realization and those that are more foundational and developmental. I was told the very heavy work is more effective as a type of realization of skill and less useful for general strength development- this is partly due to the fact that increased loading means less volume- but also the idea that skill is best developed at loads around 75-85% since it allows for more efficiency, precise and proficient movement. The idea is that weights that are hard, slow or grind are potentially counterproductive over an extended period. I was told the specific adaptations achieved by heavy loading is developed very quickly. I'm still processing a lot of this.
I think you are right about the RPEs- ideally people should be finding a balance of intensity/loading/volume that works for them- do RPEs provide us with a way of "tuning" in rather than simply following numbers. I wonder what is more important however- lots of last reps or lots of first reps.
Interestingly both Mike and I dropped the fatigue drop concept in favor of set amounts of repetitions within different "zones". Apparently there is research that looks at forms of adaptations you might call realization and those that are more foundational and developmental. I was told the very heavy work is more effective as a type of realization of skill and less useful for general strength development- this is partly due to the fact that increased loading means less volume- but also the idea that skill is best developed at loads around 75-85% since it allows for more efficiency, precise and proficient movement. The idea is that weights that are hard, slow or grind are potentially counterproductive over an extended period. I was told the specific adaptations achieved by heavy loading is developed very quickly. I'm still processing a lot of this.
I think you are right about the RPEs- ideally people should be finding a balance of intensity/loading/volume that works for them- do RPEs provide us with a way of "tuning" in rather than simply following numbers. I wonder what is more important however- lots of last reps or lots of first reps.
0ni
Registered Rustler
First reps and last reps have their advantages. First reps are very clean and last reps provide the most TUT in the weakest position. With RPE though you can gauge technique and use that on your RPE scale- Which is what I do. I've been ramping up to a max set of 1-3 reps that I can do with good technique and then building on volume over "90%" of the predicted daily max from this strength test.
A lot of the "stay away from high percentages" seems to be about technique breakdown. I only really have this problem on squats though, so I like to keep those percentages a bit lower after my initial test. Front squats I have no issues with though, or other exercises. They all look the same and if I miss a rep it just stops. Maybe I am different from most people in this regard, who knows
A lot of the "stay away from high percentages" seems to be about technique breakdown. I only really have this problem on squats though, so I like to keep those percentages a bit lower after my initial test. Front squats I have no issues with though, or other exercises. They all look the same and if I miss a rep it just stops. Maybe I am different from most people in this regard, who knows
Spritcha
New member
I think the key is finding the right balance of volume and loading.
The heavier you go the less you can do. For example Malanichev does fairly low volume (for a Russian) but very heavy. I visited his gym on Monday and looked at his program. It's was a periodised program, but went very heavy (I think he said he did 450x2x2 in squat and on Monday he was deadlifting 380x3x2. But it's low frequency and low volume. Yarymbash has criticised his approach saying its too heavy. His approach is much higher volume, higher frequency, lower loading. In 2005, for example, he squatted 431kg but I think he said the heaviest he went in training was something like 360.
I'm not saying its better one way or the other, people are different- but I think the answer for each person will be finding the optimal balance. I believe most Russian coaches say that's normally going to be with the majority of work in the 75-85% range.
If you look at Prilepins chart for example 90% plus the total rep range is 10, with an optimal rep count of 4, whereas if you do 70-80% you get 12-24 reps with optimal being 18. Frequency is a big factor obviously. I think you can pack more in if you spread volume across more sessions and this means the average loading can go up.
Spritcha
New member
Yeah- it's based on Olympic lifts- it's not right. But I understand its a starting point for most powerlifting plans in Europe. Obviously it is different for bench and squat and deadlift and from lifter to lifter, but it offers something as a guide.
The coach I spoke to said all powerlifting coaches do sports science degrees with a specialisation in weightlifting and from there learn powerlifting. They start with Prilepins chart, amongst other things then adapt it for the powerlifts. That's the foundation for most plans like those written by sheiko.
0ni
Registered Rustler
Yeah, the correlation seems right but even when you look some of the Russian weightlifting training and certainly what the Chinese are currently doing, what the Bulgarians did it seems like they doubled or even tripled it's recommendations. A starting point seems a lot better
M@YHEM
Member
Very interesting..
From personal experience and I am by no means an expert I have found that like you asked Oni, striving to go as heavy as possible with correct form has had the best results. Thinking of it as stimulation rather than annihilation.
eg. Couple of weeks ago I changed my squat form and performed a reverse pyramid for 6 sets so that I could get the form change sorted. I started at about 60% to almost fail and worked up to my final set at my regular weight. By doing this I increased my volume(total kg's lifted) by about double. I noticed no real soreness in the days to follow. A week later I went back to the regular 5x5 and was sore again. I know that DOMS aren't a great judge of growth but it was interesting to note the difference, I really thought I would be sorer with more volume.
From personal experience and I am by no means an expert I have found that like you asked Oni, striving to go as heavy as possible with correct form has had the best results. Thinking of it as stimulation rather than annihilation.
eg. Couple of weeks ago I changed my squat form and performed a reverse pyramid for 6 sets so that I could get the form change sorted. I started at about 60% to almost fail and worked up to my final set at my regular weight. By doing this I increased my volume(total kg's lifted) by about double. I noticed no real soreness in the days to follow. A week later I went back to the regular 5x5 and was sore again. I know that DOMS aren't a great judge of growth but it was interesting to note the difference, I really thought I would be sorer with more volume.